Dependent parents are eligible for medical reimbursement under the New Health Insurance Scheme.

The appellant, a Government school teacher and subscriber to the New Health Insurance Scheme, incurred ₹2,31,112 in medical expenses for his father’s treatment and sought reimbursement under the Scheme.

The claim was rejected on the ground that a Government employee’s parents were not included within “family member” under the Scheme.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on the same basis; the appellant challenged that order in this appeal.

Whether a Government employee may claim medical reimbursement under the New Health Insurance Scheme for treatment of a parent, notwithstanding the rejection of the claim on the ground that parents are not “family members” under the Scheme.

Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal and the competent authority’s rejection should be set aside in light of the subsequent decisions cited by the appellant.

The Court relied on its decisions concerning reimbursement of medical expenses for dependent parents, including P. Kathiravan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government (W.P.(MD) No.23134 of 2025, 26 August 2025), which applied a purposive interpretation to the meaning of “family” and considered parental dependency.

The Director General of Police v. M. Ravi (W.A. No.3290 of 2024, 23 September 2025), which held that excluding dependent parents from a welfare scheme could be arbitrary and inconsistent with the scheme’s purpose.

The Court treated those decisions as establishing that a claim for a parent’s medical expenses could not be denied solely because the parent was excluded from the definition of “family”.

The Court found that the appellant’s subscription to the Scheme, his father’s treatment, and the medical expenses incurred were undisputed; the claim had been rejected solely because the father was not treated as a family member.

Applying the principles in the cited decisions, the Court held that this ground alone could not sustain the rejection. It therefore set aside both the Single Judge’s order and the rejection order, while making reimbursement subject to verification of the claim and supporting medical records under the applicable Scheme.

It held the appellant entitled to reimbursement for his father’s treatment, subject to verification under the Scheme, and directed the concerned authority to process and disburse the eligible amount within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

No costs were ordered.